As you might have noticed, I went dark during this presidential election. It’s not that I didn’t have anything to say, but rather that every topic was a dead horse that the media was already beating en masse. I, like most of the rest of you, thought that this current political circus was nothing more than monkeys flinging poo at each other for fifteen months and in the end I wasn’t happy about ANY of the candidates. But before I digress I’d like to talk about the election and its immediate aftermath.

Yup, Donald Trump won a quite improbable victory on election night, really sometime early the next morning, and went from candidate Trump to President-elect Trump. This is not insubstantial. This was the direct result of a guerrilla campaign waged by a relative outsider, with no political experience against someone who’s been a fixture in state and federal government since the 70’s. He tapped into the despair and wants of the middle class, which has been shrinking steadily for the last twenty years, and through catering to them was elected, by what appears to have been a razor-thin margin in certain states. At the very least that victory must be acknowledged for the political coup it was. Very few, almost no one, in the main stream media was predicting any type of Trump victory over the vast Clinton machine. Just what he is going to do with the presidency and how he is going to impact the country, well we’re just going to have to find out.

However, for a certain section of voters, most of the far left, and the media these election results were nothing short of catastrophic, an election Armageddon that is going to bring America to its knees. The rage quit in all of these special flowers came to the surface as they rioted (the media engaged in verbal rioting), had their classes cancelled for grief counseling, puppies, safe spaces, and coloring books, and have been a general nuisance at the best and near seditious at the worst. Their rhetoric, vitriol, and whiny crap are all over social media, YouTube, etc…even three weeks after the election. You can search for videos and watch everything from inconsolable crying to violence in the streets. (A quick note, in America violence is not the answer when your candidate doesn’t win, that kind of crap is relegated to despotic countries.)

To hear them lament, which has given me some Schadenfreude satisfaction to be sure, this is the worst thing to happen since 2000 when Bush “stole” the election from Gore. It has been compared to the tragedy of 9/11…as if the two are comparable in any way, shape, or form. They’ve proceeded to point out that Clinton won the popular vote, as if that factoid means something, and that President-elect Trump should be considered illegitimate at the very least, and at the far end of the spectrum would like Clinton to be seated as the President regardless of the Electoral College, which they see as a sexist, racist, and antiquated system put in place by old white men who were mostly concerned about keeping something, from I’m not sure what, from happening. They have openly called for the subversion of the constitutional method of electing a president for their own wants under the guise of free speech and not my president.Some have gone as far to suggest misusing the 25th Amendment to stage an actual coup…this is how much they hate either the right or Trump. Jill Stein, a green party candidate idiot who nationally got less than 1% of the vote, is raising money and demanding recounts in the states that Trump had the smallest victories. What is she trying to prove, I don’t know because no recount has ever over come even a 2,500 vote difference much less, 11,000, 22,000, or 70,000 vote leads. However, for all these actions there is a response to the attempted de-legitimization of Trump’s victory.

To set things straight. America is not a direct democracy, we are not representative republic, instead America did the first thing of its kind ever in the history of man and became a representative democracy. Yes, there are slight differences, and to see them discussed one must only read the Federalist Papers, number 10 deals with the differences exactly. This America, when founded was an entirely new type experiment. After all, it was James Wilson, one of the drafters of the Constitution and later a Supreme Court Justice who defended the Constitution in 1787 and said that in a democracy (i.e. representative democracy) that the sovereign power is “inherent in all the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” No one had ever tried this before, and the nearest comparable model was ancient Greece. Additionally, the United States is a constitutional democracy, in which the courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. It was by this that the electoral college became a compromise by the founding fathers to bridge the gap between direct democracy and representative republic and enshrined it in the 12th Amendment in 1804 (after problems with Article II Section 1, Clause 6 in the elections of 1796 and 1800). A quick read of Federalist Paper 68 will give you more insight on the father’s thoughts on an electoral college.

But, the states don’t exist to work for the federal government, the federal government was a creation of several sovereign states, and to that end is ultimately answerable to them. That is why the senate has equal representation of all states regardless of size or population, because all states are sovereign and equal and that is the way they set up the federal government (contrary to the Vox belief that smaller states are unequally represented in the Senate). Additionally, that is why the house has unequal representation, because those people are representatives of the overall population of their respective states, to give them equality of voice. All of this was done to avoid the well-founded fear of “the tyranny of the majority” as coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, where the great mass of people in a few well populated states exercise a greater level of democracy than less populated states…which is what the left is now clamoring for.

They’ve said that a lack of voters cost her the election, fewer people turning out, blah,blah, blah…well, in 2012 129,075,630 people voted. In 2016, while the counts aren’t complete the total stands at 135,151,313. In other words over 6 million more people voted this presidential election than in the last one, a net result so far of +4.7% from four years ago. And while it is true that voter turnout was down in a handful of states (5: IA, HI, MS, OH, WI) the turnout was up in 45 states and the District of Columbia.(1) So, when the pundits and the media say the voters didn’t turn out, that’s not the truth. The voters turned out, they just weren’t voting for Clinton in the same percentages they voted for Obama. Yes, Clinton won the popular vote by what will probably be somewhere in the 2-2.5 million vote range, and that plus $5.75 will get you a Starbucks. Packing both coasts with liberals apparently won’t get the job done without winning some of the middle.

The left and their lackeys are making the argument that Clinton should ascend to the presidency based on these numbers despite the fact that Trump won 30 of the 51 popular votes held on Election Day, federalism in action. They would wipe out the will of 60% of the states on the fact that Clinton received 4.17 million more votes in California than did Trump. (I only mention California because a vocal group of them now want to secede, to form a socialist utopia, sanctuary country where everyone is wonderful I guess) As if it the fault of Trump and the GOP that the left has created the spaces of solid liberal voting blocks that don’t control the vast majority of the electoral votes, while the GOP is spread out through the majority of rural America. They say that Clinton won a plurality of the votes in the popular vote, 48.2% to Trump’s 46.3%. I have another take on the matter, Clinton won a plurality indeed, but the majority of voters 51.8% (69,999,201 voters) rejected her vision for America.

This is the beauty of our system. That one candidate can win the majority of states’ approval in the Electoral College and take the presidency without winning the popular vote. Majority tyranny be damned. Long live the republic, even when it doesn’t give you the results you think you deserve.

The Hillary Clinton email scandal, or as it should be called the Hillary Clinton email crimes, have dominated the news cycle for better part of the last year, despite the main stream media’s love affair with all things progressive and their willful ignorance of crimes committed by democrats (unless you’re George Zimmerman). You have heard every expert in the world weigh in on every aspect of the scandal. The one thing the American people could agree on was this was not a good thing.

Hillary denied, Hillary stalled, Hillary deleted. Aides forgot, obfuscated, misled, etc. Hell, Bill took a flight to have a private meeting with the Attorney General of the United States on a private plane just a few days prior to discuss grandchildren. All of it leading to this. Wow.

Of course, we all expected the FBI to wind up their investigation before the presidential nominations took place later this month and so out marched the Director of the FBI to give us all the news he saw fit. You all saw it, right there on national television. James Comey stood there and recited everything we knew about the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

Here is an excerpt: (bold emphasis is mine)

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” emails).

None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

and on and on. blah blah, no reasonable prosecutor, etc. In the end, Hillary for the win, free pass for her, for her staff, for everyone…well for everyone named Clinton and connected to her, despite the overwhelming evidence that classified material found its way onto and was discussed via an unsecured, private, outside of government channels, email server with no oversight.

With this pronouncement the feckless director of the FBI has gone, in the words of Robert Downy Jr., Full Tard. Because Comey in his speech made his own case that Hillary Clinton met every condition required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18)(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793): Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence (emphasis mine) permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

But when you’re Hillary none of this matters. Never mind the classified information on the server, the lack of ability to use a private server for emails regarding the state in a FOIA environment, never mind any of that, and certainly do not pay attention to the glaringly obvious violation of U.S. Code…WE WILL NOT INDICT HER MAJESTY FOR ANY REASON, SHE IS ABOVE THE LAW. (he might as well say, I won’t bite the hand that is going to feed me and Loretta once we help her secure victory in the presidential election, hold on I’ve got a call from the director of the IRS about some pesky conservative groups we need to harass, yeah we’ve got the riot gear, but we’ll have to wait for President Clinton to assume the office if we want to go full Waco…yes, Hail Hydra, I mean Hillary). If there was an actual WTF moment, now was the time to use it if you were an real reporter today…

I’m guessing that somewhere, Patreaus, Snowden, and Manning sit absolutely dumbfounded. I also bet that Robert Hanssen and Aldritch Ames are contacting their lawyers from the little hell holes they made for themselves and asking them to find out if they are in any way genealogically related to Hillary Clinton. The ramifications would be amazing if they were.

So I ask again, Do you want a Banana Republic? Because this is how you get a Banana Republic. No citizen, regardless of the office they hold, or the bloodline they come from should be exempt from and above the laws of the United States of America. Different sets of laws for different people is the tool of the despot, but that is just what the FBI and DOJ have done for Clinton today.

The FBI called Hillary: Reckless, Careless, showing a marked lack of Judgment, and Negligent…and then said, well she didn’t mean it, so its all good, but if any of you other peons try it, we’ll fry your ass.

And a good portion of America still thinks she should run for president? People are actually still considering voting for someone like her? Holy Crap.

The only chance the American people are going to have to indict Hillary, or probably ever will, comes this November. You can indict her by not voting for her, and electing someone who hasn’t spilled national secrets, gotten Americans killed and then lied about it, or has gotten a free pass for years and years of criminal behavior.

I wanted to wait a bit, to see how the government and this administration was going to handle the obvious terror attack by Omar Mateen in Orlando at the Pulse. The answer is not very well. The administration had made two things very clear; one, they are going to blame the guns, once again, and use a national tragedy to attempt to limit the second amendment rights of law-abiding people because someone does something horrible with a gun, and two; they have adopted a See no (radical) Islam, Hear no (defamation of) Islam, Speak no (words condemning radical) Islam mindset.

This second thing shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, it took congress passing as part of the 2015 NDAA to declare the fact that Nidal Hasan was engaging in terror when he killed 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood in 2009. Up until that time the Obama administration had classified it as workplace violence…despite the fact that radical islsmist Hasan was screaming allahu akbar while going on his spree of violence.

Then again, after the San Bernadino shooting by Farook and Malik the president declined to call the shooting a terrorist act propagated by islamic radicals, despite all the clues pointing towards radical islam. In fact, only two days after the shooting he marched out Attorney General Loretta Lynch to give a statement that anti-muslim or anti-islam speech “…when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action.” Her blatantly partisan message, part of the Hear no Islam trifecta, drew staunch criticism about what she would have the DOJ do to regular Americans engaging their First Amendment rights and what speech exactly “edges toward violence” had Lynch walking back her comments just a few days later clarifying that “of course we prosecute deeds and not words.”

Now of course, moving on to Mateen and his acts of evil in Florida. When Obama made his speech, there was no mention of Islam, Radical Islam, or terrorists. All part of the Speak no Islam bit, and by refusing to call it terrorism he hopes the American people will See no Islam. He did say an act of terror, a term so ambiguous that it could be applied to any shooting anywhere at any time. Yes, someone going on a shooting spree is engaging in a terror campaign. But when that same person calls 911 three times to declare their allegiance to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, you have a terror attack on your hands. It can’t be too much clearer than that.

Go ahead a few days to Lynch telling the press that when they release the 911 calls to the public they are going to censor out all the references to islam, isis, and the like. Why? Because they want to avoid re-victimizing the families of the deceased. Excuse me? Their loved ones are dead! Shot and killed by a terrorist that you want to scrub the record and put down as just another lone wolf type, mad at the world, taking out his frustrations, skipping over the fact that he had long been radicalized, had been investigated at least twice and then let go on his merry way, despite the fact that he didn’t change his tune the entire time. And you’re worried that the mere mention of islam, the proof of his radicalism on audio will hurt people more than they are already hurting?

The investigative arm of the FBI is at least as complicit for not heeding the warnings of dozens of people who saw something and said something, just like the big brother campaign wants us to. But that See Something, Say Something mentality DOES NOT APPLY to muslims or islam…because that would be profiling or something.

Instead, we attack the guns, call for a ban on the AR-15 once again, despite the fact that the gun in question wasn’t even part of the AR family of weapons. But that makes no difference. Enter the left and the vitriolic rhetoric machine. Guns are bad, guns are bad, guns make people do bad things. There is nothing worse than a gun…not even a not terrorist engaging in terror.

Good ‘ol Joe Biden made bad gun noises for the media and told them you can kill more people with a rifle than a handgun (I guess he ignored Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007). Other politicians and news pundits have been lambasting guns and gun laws no matter how stupid they sound. Some of the worst, most idiotic speech came out of Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) when she inexplicably said, “You know, the fact is, the AR-15, the gun that Mateen used, that’s a weapon of war. It’s advertised as being able to do technologically advances in killing people that previous weapons have been unable to do, and somebody who’s buying that kind of a weapon isn’t buying it for target shooting. They’re not buying it to go out and hunt deer. You don’t need an AK-47 or an AR-15 to hunt deer. They’re buying it to do bad things, and we need to recognize that, and address it.”

Wow. Several things here…being able to do technologically advances in killing…I don’t even know what to do with that phrase. She was so caught up in her own rabidity she choked on her foam..I assume she meant the weapon is more technologically advanced than…a bolt action rifle? The weapon has been around since the 50’s for crap’s sake. There is nothing technologically advanced about it, it doesn’t go full auto, it doesn’t track people automatically, it doesn’t fire a laser. It’s just another gun. Oh, and good job vilifying the people who do buy them as someone who is going to do bad things with it. I’m sure the 5-10 million AR owners are just itching to shoot people willy-nilly in the streets. They’ve just been biding their time…or something. Lastly, she used the word NEED. No shit! IT’S NOT CALLED THE BILL OF NEEDS! It’s the BILL OF RIGHTS!! and brandishing a firearm, for protection, for hunting, for target shooting, to discourage despotism, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Once again, blame the guns, ignore the terrorists in the room and maybe the people will consent to give up their guns and open themselves up for massive terror attacks like we haven’t seen or are willing to talk about.

The narrative should be, we will do a better job investigating those who have indicated they are radical islamists or who have been reported as radical islamists. Yes, See something, say something applies to muslims as well and we will investigate those claims as assuredly as the IRS will be used to target conservative organizations. And finally, maybe we need to have a conversation about who should be allowed into this country, maybe letting in a pro-taliban afghani with ties to radical islam was a bad idea seeing as how he raised a son who went full terrorist in Orlando.

But we won’t, or I should say Obama won’t. Because the offical government narrative is ISIS is the JV team, they can’t harm us. Those terror attacks, aren’t. And if you would just let us get those pesky semi-automatic rifles from all of you, the government will be able to keep you safe.

Recently media polling had shown that Sen. Bernie Sanders (“I”- VT) has been creeping ahead in the polls against Hillary Clinton and currently enjoys a 27 point lead in New Hampshire while Iowa is currently a statistical dead heat, but there is a large margin of error there. Additionally, national polling is showing that Clinton’s lead, once thought insurmountable, is shrinking faster than it did in 2008 when the dark horse candidacy of Obama came out of nowhere with a massive ground swell to take the nomination. Some are asking could 2016 be a repeat performance by a Clinton who has eight additional years of bad baggage to haul with her to the nomination.

Bernie Sanders’ pie-in-the-sky promises are sure currently pulling in the people, and it is quite possible that if elected president he would be forced to plant some kind of tree that all the free stuff is going to grow on or tax the American people to death. But the young currently aren’t thinking about the realities of all those promises, just like they didn’t think that hope and change really meant, hope that change would be left for them when Obama got done spending. They hear the words free, tax the rich, fair and they are in, despite the fact that taxing the rich is likely to keep them from being prosperous someday. The suddenly hip 74 year-old Sanders is making waves and threatening what was supposed to be a quick tour to Clinton’s coronation. But does it even matter?

The Democratic Party, at least during my lifetime, has always stood for “tyranny, oppression, and government overreach,” to quote a sitcom having a moment of gravitas. Part of that trifecta of democratic wonderfulness is the banishment of the Representative Republic (what America actually is) in their convention process. No longer does the ordinary citizen alone control who wins the nomination of the party; rather the candidate who wins the most state delegates and the most super delegates ends up with the party nomination.

Of course, you know what a state delegate is, the delegation of people selected through party affiliation to represent the state’s vote during the primaries…kind of an electoral college for the nomination process, except the votes by state are proportional, split the primary 50/50 you get half the delegates, win 75/25 in a landslide you get 3/4ths of the delegates, and so on. However, the democratic powers added the Super delegates in the 1980’s as a way to award party officials and other elected officials, i.e. the privileged class of the Democratic Party and ensure that only the most electable of candidates received the nomination. These super delegates are not declared for any candidate, but usually vote in the direction of the people, usually.

There are 713 super delegates out of the 4,764 delegates who will be casting a vote during the nomination process, that is 15% of the vote. If the polling closes up to a near split, or if the numbers are closer than say 5-7%, the super delegates will be able to swing the vote one way or the other. Here is the thing though, Clinton has been snapping up the endorsement of super delegates from the start of the campaigning. Currently, she has at least 341 publically declared super delegates already, regardless of the people’s vote, and it is rumored that she may actually have somewhere between 440-500 committed super delegates. In contrast, Sanders has 11 declared super delegates.

Clinton needs 2383 votes to win the nomination, and she already has 15% of that total locked up before a state ballot has even been cast in the first primary. As long as she manages not to get indicted and only loses to Sanders nationally by less than 10%, she may still very well end up the candidate selected at the convention, no matter what the people have to say on the matter.

Power to the Party, which should even make a socialist like Sanders smile, while Clinton cackles her way to the nomination.

On Monday, December 7th, Donald Trump the Republican frontrunner for President, released a statement to the press calling for (if he were president) “a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” This was a bold statement that not everyone agreed with, in fact, many politicos and pundits on both the left and the right called it racist, xenophobic, unconstitutional, etc.

The White House, in its infinite wisdom, trotted out Josh Earnest, the current lapdog mouthpiece of liberal bull$hit, to not only denounce Trump, but to literally tell the press that, “what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as President.” They called him un-American for espousing an idea…when in actuality calling for someone to have punitive restrictions enacted on them because of their exercise of free speech is the real un-American activity here. In fact, I looked in the Constitution, and I couldn’t find anywhere where it said if you say something the party in power hates, you’re disqualified from running for office. Nothing at all…in fact all I found was the right to free speech. So no matter what you think of Trump’s idea, any rational American would have to argue that he has the right to make it, even if it disgusts them. The real question to answer is this: the media has been shouting from the rooftops, MSNBC, CNN, etc. that Trump’s idea of a temporary moratorium on Muslim entry into this country is unconstitutional. That is what the media would like us to believe.

Well it seems that strangely enough, we have a section of U.S. code that deals with “Inadmissible Aliens” actually U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, part 2, 1182…a long look up, for sure but there is a whole section on terrorism (1182,a, 3, B) but then there is a caveat for the President in general (1182,f) that says, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, [emphasis mine] he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

This isn’t new, in fact, this part of the U.S. Code was passed in 1952 during the Eisenhower Administration. But I guess the constitutionality of the U.S. Code should be in doubt and Trump should be disqualified from running for President. But wait didn’t we have a situation that used this bit of U.S. Code? Let’s see…

It seems that during the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979, President Jimmy Carter, rounded up all 50,000 Iranian students in the country at the time and then ejected 15,000 of them, then banned all Iranians from travelling or immigrating to the U.S….if I recall correctly wasn’t the overthrow of the Shah in Iran about hard line religious Imams taking control and establishing a theocracy? It was.

An appeals court said of his decision, “The present controversy involving Iranian students in the United States lies in the field of our country’s foreign affairs and implicates matters over which the president has direct constitutional authority.”

They also clarified that, “Distinctions on the basis of nationality may be drawn in the immigration field by the Congress or the executive. So long as such distinctions are not wholly irrational, they must be sustained.

So not only would a President Trump be able to ban all muslims from travelling to America for business, pleasure, or relocation, he could do it legally, and while it would certainly be interesting to see how the banning of an entire religion would work out as it covers many nationalities over most of the world, it would certainly be warranted seeing the amount of Islamic terrorism taking place around the world and the dangers it poses to American citizens.

It might not be popular with the liberal left, of even the moderately center, and while I personally would harbor some reservations of a ban on 1.1 billion people for even a limited amount of time, it would certainly be legal, defensible, and Constitutional.

As we all well know now, American born muslim Syed Rizwan Farook, and his Pakistani born wife here on a K-1 finace visa, Tashfeen Malik, went on a shooting spree in San Bernardino California killing 14 and wounding 17 before being killed by police in a shootout. But the media and the great politicians of our day are nibbling at the edges of the facts while skirting around two issues.

The first issue the media and the current administration want to pursue is the gun control argument. Before the blood had even cooled, before the suspects had been killed in a shootout, before we even knew what the hell happened, our great leaders were calling for greater gun control measures and CNN turned into the gun control propaganda headquarters, for everyone from President Obama, to Hillary, crazy Bernie Sanders, and yes even irrelevant Martin O’Malley. All of them, so set on continuing the narrative of safety in reduction of guns in the hands of Americans by making sure only the central authorities have guns argument, calling it gun control. But wait, California has some pretty damn strict gun laws, one might say draconian. One might also say useless. Because the guns the terrorists used were purchased legally.

The terrorists managed to buy two “assault” weapons, and somehow bypass the 10 round capacity limit on those magazines. They violated the open carry law in California…but yet California requires a background check at all gun shows, at all other locations for ANY firearm purchase, and has a minimum 10 day waiting period for the purchase of a gun. “But we don’t understand,” the libtards whine. “Those laws should have protected us from these people.” No the laws only keep the people who would already follow them from violating the laws. Criminals do whatever they want. Laws mean nothing to people who are hell bent on ending the lives of as many people as they can, they will always find a way to circumvent any law meant to thwart them.

The second issue, is the terror issue. No one wants to call it terror, their neighbor didn’t want to report them to the police, despite what he viewed as suspicious behaviour because he didn’t want to be accused by of and executed on the altar of political correctness for thinking a “middle eastern” person might be doing something fishy in their house. Remember the big brother slogan from Homeland Security urging us to prepare to inform on our neighbors…See Something, Say Something…how come it didn’t work when your neighbors aren’t GOP, Christian, gun-owning, NRA member having, Caucasians??? Something about Christians terror groups and disaffected Americans being the biggest threat to our nation, blah blah blah, despite the fact that muslim terrorists have killed more thousands of people in this country in the last 15 years. Something like that, you’d think the neighbors would be on the lookout for terrorists. And make no doubt about it, this was terrorism.

Let’s list the facts: muslim, devout muslim who left work to pray when the time came, between the ages of 18-49, travelled to Saudi Arabia for the Hajj, brought home a foreign national for a spouse (interesting that she passed a Homeland Security background check in 2014 to come into this country on a green card, but we’ll save that for the refugee debate), devoted to the study of the Quaran. Wow a lot of that points towards extremism when you throw in the shooting.

The shooting of course taking place during the holiday party (i.e. Christmas party for the non-PC, but California is one of those all inclusive places) where maximum damage could be inflicted on a large group in one area. Again, no motives shouted by the killers, but workplace violence in an area of government that let him off to pray everyday, that let him take leave to go on the Hajj, that had a diverse group of people working for it…the narrative of workplace violence is thin, but I think the politicians will ride it for all it is worth rather than admit it was terror. Again, Obama denied that the Fort Hood shooting was anything other than workplace violence for four years despite the fact that Hassan was screaming Allahu Akbar while shooting.

The problem with Farook and Malik is they destroyed the left’s narrative when the killed his co-workers at a Christmas party in the middle of the day and left bombs behind. Gun control does nothing to stop criminals with ill intent on their minds, and domestic islamic terror has once again reared its ugly head in America and it can’t be ignored forever.

What if I told you that the government, and basically all the governments of the world, were working on ways of making cash transactions illegal? What would you say? Well, you’d call me a crazy, a fringer, no basis in fact, etc. Don’t forget about a piece I wrote a while back called “Metal Detecting your cash” you think the use of radar guns and metal detectors to see cash amounts over a certain threshold were just a side effect of the process of printing the bills…

Enough of that, let’s talk cash restriction. We have been moving to a cashless society for the last forty years. The rise of the credit card, the debit card, online bill paying, etc., it has gotten to the point where you can just wave your card at a reader and make your purchase. But what about all those people who still insist on using cash.
Governments are now starting to place restrictions on the use of cash. They tell us this is being done to thwart criminals, terrorists, drug runners, money launderers, and tax evaders. This is BS for the simple reason that the Bit coin is the single best way to launder money and it is entirely digital, add to that the Silk Road on the internet, a one stop shop for your illegal needs on the deep net, and one will realize that the criminals are also getting tech savvy. Hackers steal millions and millions every year, and little of that is in physical cash. The fact of the matter is that we are being slowly trained, like Pavlov’s dogs, to regard the use and trade of large amounts of cash for goods as unusual. Don’t think so? Try making a purchase over $1000 and see what kind of stares you get back, try to pull a large amount of cash out of the bank, maybe you can have it in three days or so, attempt to purchase a used car with a stack of hundred-dollar bills nearly a half an inch high (that’s about $10,000 each bill being .0043 inches thick) and people WILL look at you like you’ve just offered them an ounce of black tar heroin…oh, and they might not even take it. I’ve been to several places, businesses, etc. that tell me they aren’t even prepared to accept cash anymore.

Now that they have you suspicious all they have to do is formally declare large cash transactions illegal or ban them outright, you’ll be relieved, no more drug dealers offering you their dirty money. France has done so, the largest cash transaction you can make is 1000 euros, the same with Italy, Spain limits it to 2500, etc. Denmark is considering a law that would allow all places to refuse cash and demand electronic payment, a key moment in the advent of a cashless society.

Once all money only exists in bank accounts they can be monitored and controlled by the government, they can encourage us to spend more when the economy slows, or spend less when it expands too much. A white paper on the subject spells out how they would do that…”to boost spending the bank imposes a negative interest rate on the money residing in private accounts, in effect, a tax on saving, faced with seeing money slowly confiscated people are more likely to spend it on goods and services.” When the economy gets too hot, the bank simply imposes an extra tax on transactions, thus causing the consumer to spend less…it might sound impossible but Denmark and Switzerland already charge negative interest rates.

* Banks, bank holding companies, and their subsidiaries are required by federal regulations to file a SAR with respect to: Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more, if the bank or affiliate knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction:
o May involve potential money laundering or other illegal activity (e.g., terrorism financing)
o Is designed to evade the BSA or its implementing regulations
o Has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the type of transaction that the particular customer would normally be expected to engage in, and the bank knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.

Funds transfer records. The BSA requires banks to maintain records of funds transfer in amounts of $3,000 and above. Periodic review of this information can assist banks in identifying patterns of unusual activity.

Then, on top of that some banks, Chase in particular, have advised clients they may no longer store cash in their safety deposit boxes: “Contents of box: You agree not to story any cash or coins other that those found to have a collectible value.” This of course is in order to facilitate the re-deposit of that cash into the banking system, because after all who wants to keep $5K, $10K, or more under their mattress…not many people who I know.

And the IRS acts on these “suspicious activities” remember civil forfeiture…yup, still happening. Just google it…you’ll get crap like this

And there are many, many more. This is just a warning…the chances they come for you are slim, until they want your money. Control, absolute control, control over what you buy, where you store your money, and whom you interact with in business, once they have that, you become a slave to the state.

We’ve been hearing it so long and for some reason it just refuses to die. But maybe if those spouting #blacklivesmatter understood the underlying philosophy behind the call for “justice” they might think twice before booing when someone responds with “all lives matter.” Because lets face it in America all lives should matter.

The author makes the case that calling for all lives to matter is dismissive of the fact that black lives matter, and the belief that the call black lives matter means the people saying it are saying that ONLY black lives matter not that black lives matter too. Well if the call was #blacklivesmattertoo then maybe it would be more believable. But, and it is a big but, the reality of the situation is that the call literally means only black people killed by whites or police officers matter.

Yes. That is a fact.

Why? Well first, where is the outrage over the black on black murders that currently make up 80% of all black homicides in this country? Nothing. Okay, what about the fact that according to killedbypolice.com (edit, the correct site is killedbypolice.net) more whites are killed by police than blacks are, and “when adjusted for the homicide rates whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at then hands of police, and when adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times as likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.” Study: More Whites Killed By Police Than Blacks | The Federalist Papers. Yup, they take a pass on that inconvenient fact too.

If that isn’t convincing enough maybe you need to look at the BLM movement and their stated goals as an organization. BLM maintains that:
1. our nation’s “corrupt democracy” was originally “built on Indigenous genocide and chattel slavery” and “continues to thrive on the brutal exploitation of people of color”;
2. “the ugly American traditions of patriarchy, classism, racism, and militarism” pervade every aspect of our society;
3. “structural opression” still “prevents so many from realizing their dreams”; and
4. blacks in the U.S. are routinely “de-humanized” and targeted for “extrajudicial killings … by police and vigilantes” in our “white supremacist system.”

Strangely this seems so much more than the facts on the surface that this is about black lives. Thus telling these people that the phrase, all lives matter doesn’t fit their ideological picture. Alicia Garza, the lead founder of the BLM movement, believes that the ideological deviation from the standard is unacceptable maintaining blacks, “are uniquely, systematically, and savagely targeted by the state” in a way that no other people are. “Stand with us in affirming Black lives,” she declares. “Not just all lives. Black lives. Please do not change the conversation by talking about how your life matters, too.” The “tired trope that we are all the same,” Garza elaborates, serves only to “perpetuate a level of White supremacist domination.”

Ah, they have no interest in any other life unless that life is black. But then again, this is not about black lives, this is about a political ideology. This is about championing their cause for the stated:

1. Reducing the law-enforcement budget (so people can get away with more crimes, or so citizens can enforce the law themselves?)
2. forcing some police departments to disband and be abolished. (um, again, this will only result in more crimes or more civilian on civilian deaths)
3. an immediate end to police brutality (which everyone wants, but doesn’t seem to happen in more than a few isolated cases that the media hypes up)
4. full, living wage employment for “our people” (scuse me, entitled much…because years and years of the war on poverty, racial quotas, and affirmative action just haven’t done enough right? and just how do you propose we go about employing “your people”)
5. decent housing (I’m guessing for free or low cost? After all, I wasn’t given decent housing, I had to save and scrimp for a decade before we could even get a mortgage)
6. freedom from mass incarceration (as if the prison system is riddled with innocent black men and women, rather than the relative few)
7. a public education system that teaches the rich history of Black people. (I would argue that you can teach your own kids about this if you wanted them to be exposed to it…I teach my kids plenty of extra things)
8. the release of all U.S. political prisoners (this has nothing to do with black lives, but since they modeled their demands on the Black Panthers of the 1960’s it makes sense)

The BLM movement isn’t for peace, it isn’t for justice, and it isn’t for black lives. This movement is a sham as evidenced by their sponsoring of Malik Shabazz. The same Malik Shabazz who has called for a race war in America, who recommends that communities avenge black shootings by creating “funerals in the police community,” who refers to the while man as the common enemy of all blacks.

BLM is a lie, a movement of bald-faced racism masquerading as a movement for justice. Don’t be tricked.

Dylann Roof shows his ignorance of American History while celebrating his hate.

Dylann Roof, is a horrible person. That much we can all agree upon. He is a sick, twisted individual who murdered 9 people for no other reason than the hate he harbored in his own heart. Is he mentally ill…I would argue that people who aren’t mentally disturbed don’t do things like go on mass killing sprees. That doesn’t mean that he gets a pass because he is “mentally challenged” or some such bull, he can differentiate right from wrong and he chose to honor, revel in, and celebrate his hate by hurting as many people as he could. We can all agree that if he had been killed while the police were bringing him in no one would have complained too much over it. But just like with that fruit loop James Holmes in Aurora, he was taken alive and will be given a trial in the hopes that the victims and the American people can get some answers out of him before we drop him into a dark hole that he will only emerge from to be executed by the state of South Carolina.

The problem now is that everyone has stopped focusing on the problems with this 21 year-old man and have focused on his love of the white supremacy movement. They have particularly zeroed in on one thing…the Confederate Battle Flag. You know the one, a blue St. Andrew’s cross with stars on a red background. The same flag that the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee would carry into battle during the Civil War. The left immediately after attempting to exploit the deaths of those in the church as the work of a conservative monster, lit into his use of the Confederate Battle Flag as a prop in his own expressions of hate. He also represented the

Apartheid flag of South Africa and the Rhodesian Flag (now Zimbabwe), but more of the focus is going to the Battle Flag, precisely because it is an American flag at its deepest roots.

Now everyone wants it removed from all facets of life no matter where and when it appears. The Confederate Battle Flag, was just that…when the Civil War ended in 1865 it became another forgotten piece of history. It wasn’t until the 1940’s that the flag would make a large reappearance. The Dixiecrat party, formed in 1948 largely to fight against the Civil Rights movement, adopted the flag as their emblem, then the following year the Democrat run KKK adopted the flag for their use too. In other words, two hate groups purloined an image from the past, once a symbol of honor denoting an Army, for use in their campaign of hate. Now the KKK also uses the Bible to spread their message of hate, but Christians have repeatedly denounced their twisting of the Bible for their own means and the public has accepted that just because someone used the Bible to spread hate, the Bible isn’t full of hate. But a flag is just a symbol of something, it contains no words of love, hope, honor, etc. So when southerners say, don’t trust the KKKs use of our flag of honor and heritage to spread their message of hate, how can people judge that the flag doesn’t indeed stand for hate. I mean the KKK waves the American Flag too, but any service member can tell you just because a racist waves an American flag and says horrible things doesn’t mean that Americans should instantly accept all these things as true.

The Confederate Battle flag has no history of hate, it was kidnapped into racist causes and touted as their banner. If the KKK started waving rainbow flags (GBLTQ) tomorrow and preaching the message of Westboro Baptist Church and started identifying a rainbow flag as the God Hates Gays Flag, would Americans instantly start tearing down all rainbow flags as they now stood for hate? No, because it is silly. But, if they did it for 50 years someone, some a$$hat activist, or brainless politician, neither of whom was versed even in the slightest amount of actual American History, would get all up in arms about how this horrible rainbow flag was helping to spread a message of hate. Down the flag would come.

See, the flag isn’t the problem. The message that some people attach to the flag is the problem, and people have to learn how to separate the two. Hate mongers will use whatever imagery they can to spread their message and get it to stick in the minds of those they are engaging, whether it be a Bible, Koran, Flag, Banner, Slogan, stuffed animal, whatever. The object isn’t the thing of distaste that you feel in the back of your throat when you see the object. You are experiencing a rejection of the message.

Don’t let the messages of the few monsters of the world poison the well of true American History. The Confederate Battle Flag is just a flag. It represents the young men of 150 years ago who went into battle against a superior foe because they felt they needed to to protect their sovereignty. They were scared and brave, under fed, under clothed, lacked weapons, medicine, and supplies in many cases, but they entered battle for their states, for their country, not to keep slaves forever or spread hate, but in the sincere belief that they had to protect their homes. We’ve let the KKK, the Dixiecrats, and now Dylann Roof steal and corrupt that heritage with their evil. But we don’t have to.